Catalog Advanced Search

Search by Categories
Search in Packages
Search by Format
Search by Type
Search by Date Range
Products are filtered by different dates, depending on the combination of live and on-demand components that they contain, and on whether any live components are over or not.
Start
End
Search by Keyword
Sort By
  • Federal Circuit v. USPTO: Chevron Deference?

    Contains 4 Component(s), Includes Credits Includes a Live Event on 09/19/2019 at 2:00 PM (EDT)

    Facebook v. Windy City Innovations is the first case at the Federal Circuit centering on deference to the USPTO since the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kisor v. Wilkie. Even before Kisor, appellants at the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court had already succeeded in arguing against Chevron deference in such cases as SAS v. Iancu. In the current showdown, the Federal Circuit has invited the USPTO to file a brief saying “what, if any, deference” the Court should give to Precedential Opinion Panel decisions. The USPTO’s brief is due on Sept. 17th, just in time for it to be discussed on the webinar.

    Some commentators would say there is an extraordinary face-off currently playing out between the Federal Circuit and the USPTO on the issue of deference. This was perhaps inevitable after the AIA established the PTAB seven years ago as a venue with broad power to adjudge the validity of issued patents, giving to the USPTO, an administrative agency, rights that previously had been exercised largely by Article lll Courts. 

    Facebook v. Windy City Innovations is the first case at the Federal Circuit centering on deference to the USPTO since the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kisor v. Wilkie. Even before Kisor, appellants at the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court had already succeeded in arguing against Chevron deference in such cases as SAS v. Iancu. In the current showdown, the Federal Circuit has invited the USPTO to file a brief saying “what, if any, deference” the Court should give to Precedential Opinion Panel decisions. The USPTO’s brief is due on Sept. 17th, just in time for it to be discussed on the webinar.   
    Our panel, which includes a former chief judge of the Federal Circuit, a former solicitor of the USPTO who is a professor of law, and the litigator who successfully argued SAS at the Supreme Court, will predict how these issues will play out and explore the implications for your practice.

    Our panel, which includes a former chief judge of the Federal Circuit, a former solicitor of the USPTO who is a professor of law, and the litigator who successfully argued SAS at the Supreme Court, will predict how these issues will play out and explore the implications for your practice.

    Speakers:

    Hon. Randall Rader 
    Gregory Castanias, Jones Day 
    Prof. John Whealan, GW Law 

    Gregory Castanias

    Jones Day

    Gregory Castanias heads the Federal Circuit practice at Jones Day. He represented SAS Institute at the Supreme Court, in a 2018 case that transformed the way that patents are litigated at the PTAB, and represented Myriad there in a Section 101 case. He has argued 70+ times at the Federal Circuit and has won numerous appeals from the PTAB. 

    Hon. Randall Rader

    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

    Hon. Randall Rader served as Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 2010-2014, and served as a Circuit Judge for ten years prior. Since leaving the bench, Judge Rader has led the Rader Group, focusing on arbitration, mediation, and legal consulting and education services. 

    Prof. John Whealan

    The George Washington University Law School

    Prof. John Whealan is Dean for Intellectual Property Law Studies at George Washington University. He served as Solicitor of the USPTO from 2001 to 2008. During his tenure, he argued 30 cases before the Federal Circuit. Previously, he was a staff attorney and litigator for the U.S. International Trade Commission, and clerked for Judge Rader at the Federal Circuit. 

  • Section 101 Litigation After Cellspin (RECORDING)

    Contains 6 Component(s), Includes Credits

    This webinar will provide tools and insights on courtroom tactics for litigating patent eligibility issues.

    In June, yet another twist occurred in the issues surrounding patent eligibility litigation.  In Cellspin, the Federal Circuit addressed whether a patent is presumed patent eligible when a patent is challenged on section 101 grounds.  District courts have been divided on this issue, often citing a concurring opinion by Judge Haldane Robert Mayer, where he opined that "no presumption of eligibility attends the section 101 inquiry."

    The Cellspin unanimous precedential panel opinion not only addressed that issue, but also provided explanations about the court’s views on the proper application of Berkheimer and Aatrix.  Those explanations are of special interest because some commentators believe that those  decisions have caused the success rate for invalidating patents early in a case under Alice to drop significantly. 

    This webinar will provide tools and insights on courtroom tactics for litigating patent eligibility issues.  The panelists are litigators who have successfully represented both patent owners and defendants, and include a vice president overseeing patent litigation at a major financial company.  They will discuss:

    • New strategies for patent owners that start with the infringement complaint
    • Ways defendants can counter plaintiff’s attempts to create factual disputes
    • Maintaining maximum flexibility for clients in an unpredictable environment


    Speakers:

    Maxine Graham, American Express

    Larry Hadley, Glaser Weil

    Kevin Rodkey, Finnegan

    Maxine Graham

    American Express

    Maxine Graham is vice president & senior IP counsel at American Express Company.  Maxine manages patent litigation and licensing.  She also handles IP aspects of M&A and commercial transactions.  Prior to joining American Express, Maxine was a patent litigator at Kirkland & Ellis.

    Larry Hadley

    Glaser Weil

    Larry Hadley joined Glaser Weil last fall as chair of its IP Department.  A patent litigator who has also negotiated license agreements, he has won many notable cases.  In Ultramercial v. WildTangent, he represented the plaintiff’s patent against patent-eligibility challenges in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court.  

    Kevin Rodkey

    Finnegan LLP

    Kevin Rodkey is a partner at Finnegan who litigates in district courts and at the PTAB.  He has both attacked and defended patents at the PTAB under Covered Business Method review, where patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 can be used to establish invalidity.

  • Licensing: Impact of Contractual Provisions on Patent Challenges (RECORDING)

    Contains 4 Component(s), Includes Credits

    Patent owners and challengers alike need to understand the potential of a contractual clause to forestall a challenge at the PTAB. For example, can a boilerplate forum selection clause in a licensing agreement prevent a validity challenge at the PTAB, even though the clause makes no specific mention of PTAB proceedings?


    Patent owners and challengers alike need to understand the potential of a contractual clause to forestall a challenge at the PTAB.  For example, can a boilerplate forum selection clause in a licensing agreement prevent a validity challenge at the PTAB, even though the clause makes no specific mention of PTAB proceedings? 

    In April, Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC, a Federal Circuit non-precedential opinion about this issue, caught the attention of stakeholders who believe that it could lead to changes in licensing practices and future litigation.  In response to a petition by the licensee for en banc rehearing of this case, the Federal Circuit recently refused to reconsider its ruling, but this issue could eventually reach the Supreme Court.  MerchSource has signaled its intention to file a petition for writ of certiorari ‒ and a group of law professors have argued that the Federal Circuit was in error in Dodocase. 

    This and related topics are now likely to crop up frequently.  This summer, a different patent owner in a case involving an expired NDA did not succeed in fending off an IPR.  The devil may be in the details. 

    Our panelists, including a technology transactions attorney, a litigator, and the top IP counsel of a major pharma company, will address issues that licensors and licensees should analyze both before agreements are made and with respect to any existing agreements. 

    Speakers:

    WIlliam Krovain, Merck

    Bridget Smith, Knobbe Martens

    David Wille, Baker Botts

    William Krovatin

    Merck & Co Inc.

    Bill Krovatin is senior vice president and assistant general counsel at Merck & Co., Inc. and is responsible for IP matters at Merck including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and IP litigation.  Bill joined Merck in 1993 as an attorney in the IP litigation group.  Previously, he was an attorney at Hoffmann-La Roche and at Morgan & Finnegan.  He is the Board Liaison to IPO’s Licensing Committee. 

    Bridget Smith

    Knobbe Martens

    Bridget Smith is an IP litigation and transactions partner at Knobbe Martens, as well as co-chair of the firm's PTAB trials practice group.  Before law school, Bridget worked as a software engineer at Motorola and SAP.  She currently focuses her practice on issues related to blockchain, smart contracts, distributed ledgers, and cryptocurrencies. 

    David Wille

    Baker Botts L.L.P.

    David Wille is a partner at Baker Botts with a broad IP and technology practice.  The majority of his practice focuses on IP litigation and appellate work (including patent, trade secret, copyright, and trademark litigation), but he has substantial experience in licensing relating to patents, trade secrets, software, and copyrights.  He also handles secured transactions and mergers and acquisitions involving intellectual property. 

  • How To Protect Your Brand Internationally Using Graphic Logo Trademarks (RECORDING)

    Contains 4 Component(s), Includes Credits

    In this webinar, the panel will discuss the intersection between trademark rights and copyrights as it relates to graphic logo trademarks, and best practices for using these trademarks to protect your brand.

    International brand protection is both complicated and increasingly important.  In many countries, trademark owners combine copyright actions with trademark Infringement actions when engaging in anti-counterfeiting efforts.  In an increasingly digital marketplace, it behooves IP owners to be familiar with innovative approaches to enforce their trademarks and copyrights internationally — and with the effectiveness of including graphic logo trademarks in their portfolios. 

    Our panel, led by moderator Ms. Jacqueline Allshouse-Hutchens (Procter & Gamble Co.), will discuss the intersection between trademark rights and copyrights as it relates to graphic logo trademarks, and best practices for using these trademarks to protect your brand.  It will not just address how graphic logo trademarks may be used in developed economies, but how they have particular value in emerging markets, such as in India, China, the Asia-Pacific, and Africa where, for a number of reasons, consumers are more likely to recognize and associate a logo mark with the goods and/or services than a word mark. 

    Speakers: 

    Sheja Ehtesham, ALG India Law Offices LLP

    Victoria Longshaw, Houlihan² Patent and Trademark Attorneys

    Andreas Renck, Hogan Lovells LLP

    Moderator:

    Jacqueline Allshouse-Hutchens, Procter & Gamble Co.

    Jacqueline Allshouse-Hutchens

    Procter & Gamble Co.

    Sheja Ehtesham

    ALG India Law Offices LLP

    Sheja Ehtesham is a managing partner at ALG India Law Offices LLP, where she focuses on trademarks, service marks, trade dress, domain names, and industrial designs.  She is responsible for trademark and design portfolios of several large multinational and Fortune 500 companies.  Her profile includes preparing and filing applications for registration of trademarks, designs, and copyrights; drafting and filing responses to office actions; and drafting and filing affidavits of use.

    Victoria Longshaw

    Houlihan² Patent and Trademark Attorneys

    Victoria Longshaw is a partner at Houlihan² Patent and Trademark Attorneys.  She practices in the field of trademarks and designs before both the Australian and New Zealand intellectual property offices.  Her practice also includes drafting, prosecution and litigation of mainly biochemical, pharmaceutical, chemical engineering, metallurgy, process technology and mechanical matters before the Australian and New Zealand patent offices.  She is a Vice Chair of IPO’s International Trademark Law & Practice Committee.  

    Andreas Renck

    Hogan Lovells LLP

    Andreas Renck is a managing partner at Hogan Lovells.  He has been advising on intellectual property law, particularly EU trademark and Community design law, and international IP prosecution and litigation, for a number of international clients.  He has been involved in thousands of application and opposition proceedings before the EUIPO in Alicante.  His knowledge and skills span from representing clients in major cases before the General Court and Court of Justice in Luxembourg, to coordinating litigation proceedings in various European countries, to coordinating worldwide and regional settlements.

  • Doctrine of Equivalents: Tips for Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Patent Prosecutors (RECORDING)

    Contains 3 Component(s)

    This webinar takes as its starting point the May opinion of the Federal Circuit in Amgen v. Sandoz, which stated that “the doctrine of equivalents [DOE] applies only in exceptional cases” and is not “simply the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims.”

    This webinar takes as its starting point the May opinion of the Federal Circuit in Amgen v. Sandoz, which stated that “the doctrine of equivalents [DOE] applies only in exceptional cases” and is not “simply the second prong of every infringement charge, regularly available to extend protection beyond the scope of the claims.” This led some experts to wonder if this decision heralded a new emphasis by the Court — or was merely a restatement of existing case law. 

    In addition to providing insights for litigators, this program will also prove useful to patent prosecutors by highlighting prosecution pitfalls that can lessen the chance of the patentee proving infringement by the DOE in the future. 

     Our panel of experienced litigators will analyze decisions including Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v. IPS Group, Inc., Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp., Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd.and others.  They will discuss: 

    • How limitations on DOE play a role, and difficulties plaintiffs face in making a case for the DOE 
    • Trying to find vitality in the DOE, such as by successfully applying the “function/result/way” or the “insubstantial difference” test and 
    • The danger to successful plaintiffs from the “ensnarement” doctrine, which has seen increased application and can play out as a trial within a trial 

    Speakers:

          Brian Coggio, Fish & Richardson

          Mark Feldstein, Finnegan

          Sailesh Patel, Schiff Hardin

    Brian Coggio

    Fish & Richardson

    Brian Coggio is of counsel at Fish & Richardson.  He has extensive experience as a senior trial attorney and counselor and has litigated disputes across a wide range of technologies with a particular focus in the chemical, pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology areas. Brian has also represented clients in numerous cases under the Hatch-Waxman Act, and is the author of “Ensnarement: A Second Bite at the Non-Infringement Apple.”

     

    Mark Feldstein

    Finnegan

    Mark Feldstein is a partner at Finnegan. He is a patent and trade secret litigator in U.S. district courts and also serves as lead counsel for clients in post-grant trial proceedings at the USPTO. He also maintains an active patent prosecution practice on behalf of domestic and foreign clients.  His practice encompasses issues involving pharmaceuticals, biochemistry, polymers, small molecule chemistry, nanotechnology, optics, and medical and analytic devices.  He holds a Ph.D. in chemistry.

     

    Sailesh Patel

    Schiff Hardin

    Sailesh Patel is a partner at Schiff Hardin. He is co-leader of its IP Group, also co-chairs the firm’s Pharmaceuticals and Biologics Patent Litigation Team, and serves on the firm’s executive committee. He frequently represents generic companies in Hatch-Waxman litigation. He has also represented clients in cases involving wind and solar technology, food processing, automotive components, and software, among other industries.  He has argued several cases at the Federal Circuit that involved the doctrine of equivalents.

  • Computer Forensics for IP Lawyers (RECORDING)

    Contains 4 Component(s), Includes Credits

    This webinar will be a high-level, introductory guide to computer forensics for IP lawyers.


    Speakers:

           Cathleen Donohoe, Pillsbury

           David Freskos, FTI Consulting

           Shannon Murphy, Winston & Strawn


    Cathleen Donohoe

    Pillsbury

    Cathleen Donohoe is an attorney in the Silicon Valley office of Pillsbury. She focuses her practice on cybersecurity, corporate investigations, and complex commercial litigation. She has successfully conducted and resolved numerous internal investigations for company boards of directors and committees involving breaches of contract and IP misappropriation.

    David Freskos

    FTI Consulting

    David Freskos is a senior director at FTI Consulting. He provides expert computer forensic and e-discovery consulting services to legal teams in support of investigations and litigation. David specializes in complex data collections from mobile devices, social media and cloud-based storage.

    Shannon Murphy

    Winston & Strawn LLP

    Shannon Murphy is a partner at Winston & Strawn. She is member of the firm’s Global Privacy and Data Security Task Force and focuses her practice on internal investigations, data protection counseling, and complex litigation, particularly matters involving potential criminal liability or trade secret issues. She is a specialist in computer forensics, and her data protection experience includes conducting a large-scale trade secrets internal investigation for a privately held financial investment company, which led to the federal conviction of two employees and a significant judgment.

     

  • Reasonable Measures to Protect Trade Secrets: Lessons for Litigators and In-House Counsel (RECORDING)

    Contains 4 Component(s), Includes Credits Recorded On: 05/30/2019

    Reasonable Measures to Protect Trade Secrets: Lessons for Litigators and In-House Counsel

    Speakers:

    Kenneth Corsello, IBM

    David Morrison, Goldberg Kohn

    Shannon Murphy, Winston & Strawn LLP

    Kenneth Corsello

    IBM

    David Morrison

    Goldberg Kohn

    Shannon Murphy

    Winston & Strawn LLP

    Shannon Murphy is a partner at Winston & Strawn. She is member of the firm’s Global Privacy and Data Security Task Force and focuses her practice on internal investigations, data protection counseling, and complex litigation, particularly matters involving potential criminal liability or trade secret issues. She is a specialist in computer forensics, and her data protection experience includes conducting a large-scale trade secrets internal investigation for a privately held financial investment company, which led to the federal conviction of two employees and a significant judgment.

     

  • PTAB Discretion: Exploring the New Metes and Boundaries (RECORDING)

    Contains 3 Component(s) Recorded On: 05/23/2019

    This webinar will explore the scope and impact of recent important PTAB precedential opinions, as well as the decisions that have been designated “informative.”

    The PTAB has issued a large number of precedential decisions in the last few months, following the Board’s issuance of its Revised Standard Operating Procedure 2 (“SOP2”) in September 2018.  Just this month, the newly established Precedential Opinion Panel designated as precedential two additional IPR decisions: Valve Corp. v. Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc. and NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri­-Plex Techs., Inc.

    Many of these recent precedential decisions articulate how the PTAB will use its discretion as granted in AIA sections 314, 315, and 325, and are therefore of key concern to petitioners, patent owners, and their counsel.  

    This webinar features a Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the PTAB, an in-house counsel, and a litigator. They will explore the scope and impact of recent important PTAB precedential opinions, as well as the decisions that have been designated “informative.” 

    Topics to be discussed include:

    • Now binding cases regarding follow-on petitions, where the same patent is challenged multiple times by the same petitioner or by a series of petitioners
    • PTAB discretion regarding first-filed petitions
    • Same party issue joinder and real-party-in-interest issues as articulated in two cases named Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC
    • PTAB discretion to deny institution
    • Details on SOP2 changes to procedures

    Speakers:  

    • Orion Armon, Cooley LLP
    • Kirby Lee, Ecolab
    • Vice Chief Judge Scott Weidenfeller, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

    Orion Armon

    Cooley LLP

     is a partner at Cooley LLP. He is a trial lawyer who focuses on multi-venue, complex patent litigation matters in district courts and before the PTAB and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has particular experience utilizing inter partes review in combination with district court litigation strategies. As lead counsel for Enfish, Orion argued the appeal in Enfish v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016). He is a member of IPO’s U.S. Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee.

    Kirby Lee

    Ecolab

     is assistant chief IP counsel at Ecolab, a global leader in water, hygiene, and energy technologies and services.  Kirby previously worked at the Department of Justice and the White House, representing the U.S. government in intellectual property litigation and serving as a senior policy advisor to the IP Enforcement Coordinator. HHeHHe also served as a clerk to the Hon. Alan Lourie of the Federal Circuit. Kirby is co-chair of the IPO litigation committee.

    Vice Chief Judge Scott Weidenfeller

    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

     is Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He manages operational and administrative aspects of the Board, including providing guidance on legal issues and the impact of changes to internal Board procedures. He previously served as Associate Solicitor of the USPTO. His primary responsibilities included managing litigation against the USPTO involving the AIA, including challenges to PTAB post-issuance proceedings. Before joining the USPTO, he worked in private practice and served as a law clerk to the Hon. Timothy B. Dyk of the Federal Circuit.



  • AI: Protecting Inventions in China, Europe and the U.S. (RECORDING)

    Contains 7 Component(s), Includes Credits

    This webinar will address how to approach the challenge of obtaining AI patent protection in three major jurisdictions, as well considering when the alternative of trade secret protection could be a better course to take.

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is attracting massive investment and AI systems seem certain to become further embedded in many industries, as well as into daily life around the world. How to best protect these inventions is a complicated issue that is playing out differently around the globe.

    This webinar will address how to approach the challenge of obtaining AI patent protection in three major jurisdictions, as well considering when the alternative of trade secret protection could be a better course to take.  Various litigation scenarios will also be considered, including the ongoing dispute in China between Zhizhen Network Technology and Apple that relates to Apple's Siri voice assistant app.

    Protecting AI inventions is not easy even when inventors and prosecutors only focus on just one set of national requirements. Experts say that to write an AI patent application it is useful to know the basics of feature engineering, gradient-descent training, genetic-algorithm training, and multi-batch techniques for organizing training data. Patents must be prepared taking into consideration both the possibility of infringement being difficult to detect ‒ and who will be considered the infringer. With AI inventions, there might be more players involved than you expect.

    Our panelists include in-house AI patent experts (one at a Chinese tech company and the other at a U.S. tech company), as well as an experienced German patent prosecutor. They will, among other things, use claim sets for actual AI inventions to compare and contrast patent law and practice among the three jurisdictions in two key areas for AI:

    • Patent eligibility, including the impact of the new USPTO guidelines put forth in January, and
    • Written description, enablement, and functional claiming.

    Speakers:  

    • Jessica Meyers, Microsoft
    • Andreas Holzwarth-Rochford, Jones Day
    • Roger Shang, Alibaba


    Andreas Holzworth-Rochford

    Jones Day

    is a partner in the Frankfurt office of Jones Day. He has prosecuted numerous IP applications and has been involved in litigation in the areas of physics and mechanical and electrical engineering. Andreas has significant technical experience in optics, laser technology, and software-implemented inventions, especially artificial intelligence and blockchain applications, wireless data communications, network engineering, medical devices, and digital health applications. He is the co-author of “Patenting Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Innovations in Europe.

    Jessica Meyers

    Microsoft Corp.

     is a senior patent attorney for Microsoft, specializing in artificial intelligence. She harvests innovations from AI engineering teams, advises AI engineering teams on patent practice, and actively reviews and edits patent applications and Office action responses. She also analyzes Microsoft’s patent portfolio and prepares claim charts for licensing and litigation. Prior to joining Microsoft, Jessica was a patent portfolio manager at the University of Washington Center for Commercialization and a patent attorney at Perkins Coie.

    Roger Shang

    Alibaba

    is Senior Legal Director at Alibaba Group.  He joined Alibaba in 2008 as its first chief patent and technology counsel and oversaw the development of its global patent program.  He also founded the legal department for Alibaba Cloud Computing.  Roger now works on international patent portfolio development, IP licensing, technology collaboration, open source, and NPE defense matters.  Prior to joining Alibaba, Roger practiced patent law at Weil Gotshal and Knobbe Martens.

  • IPR Estoppel One Year After SAS (RECORDING)

    Contains 6 Component(s), Includes Credits

    This webinar will address how district courts have applied IPR estoppel in the year since SAS was decided

    In SAS v. Iancu, the U.S. Supreme Court required the PTAB to decide the patentability of every claim challenged in a petition for inter partes review. SAS did not directly address IPR estoppel, but its holding has indirectly broadened this doctrine. This development is now playing itself out in the courts, with significant consequences for all those involved.

    This seminar will address how district courts have applied IPR estoppel in the year since SAS was decided. Panelists will not only highlight recent cases, but will also provide tactics for both plaintiffs and defendants to make arguments about the proper scope of IPR estoppel in district court litigation. This is ever more important because of the large shift in district court fights to a case-by-case analysis to determine what art “reasonably could have been raised.”

    The panel will include the post-grant proceedings director of a major patent owner and two law firm attorneys with vast experience before the PTAB, district courts, and the Federal Circuit. The topics they will address include:

    • SiOnyx v. Hamamatsu Photonics (D. Mass.) and the principle that “after SAS [a narrow view of AIA estoppel] cannot be correct”
    • Oil-Dri Corp. of America v. Nestle Purina Co. (N.D. Ill.) and the increasing importance of on-sale prior art that can be used in district court, but that could not have been raised in the IPR
    • The pending Federal Circuit appeal in BTG International Ltd. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. and whether the America Invents Act stops patent challengers who won at the PTAB from pursuing their winning arguments in court

    Speakers:  

    • Grantland Drutchas, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
    • James Hietala, Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC
    • Eliot Williams, Baker Botts LLP

    Grantland Drutchas

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

    is a founder and current managing partner of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. He has more than 20 years of experience in the practice of IP law, with a particular emphasis on litigation, licensing, and client counseling. Grant serves as chair of the firm’s PTAB Trials Practice Group, its Licensing Practice Group, and its Litigation & Appeals Practice Group. His experience includes both jury and bench trials, as well as arguing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  He is a vice chair of IPO’s Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Issues committee.

    James Hietala

    Intellectual Ventures Management LLC

    is director of post-grant proceedings at Intellectual Ventures Management LLC. He has, at times, managed 30 simultaneous cases at the PTAB. He also plays an influential role at his company in setting the strategic direction on post-grant (IPR, CBM, and reexam) proceedings involving mechanical and electrical technology. Previously, James worked in private practice. He is a member of the IPO Post-Grant Patent Office Practice committee.

    Eliot Williams

    Baker Botts LLP

    is co-chair of the PTAB practice at Baker Botts.  He has represented clients in many CBMs and IPRs, as well as in district court. He has appeared as counsel in more than 100 PTAB trials, making him one of the most experienced PTAB litigators nationwide.